🚀 go-pugleaf

In <tim.714319756@mal-s2> tim@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Tim Shelling) writes:

>In <dmeyers.714074384@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:

>>One major proper goal of government is the protection of the rights
>>of individuals.  

>What? Maybe it is the perception that our current government attempts to do
>this, but this in general is not the case; historically speaking and 
>from a philosophical view point, government CONTROLS the rights of 
>individuals. It is that *control* that gives us that freedom, that 

It can be argued that the government creates rights.  And those that
the government doesn't create for you, don't exist.  Like perhaps a
right to own property.  If there wasn't a government, your right
to own property would only extend as far as you are able to keep
someone else from taking it from you.  

>protects us from anarchy. What is wrong with anarchy? Nothing-- that is,
>unless you intend to have *some* semblance of civilization (there are those
>who would argue that today we are not civilized, but compared to an anarchist
>state, they are wrong). 

Some people are true anarchists.  I don't consider myself one.  I do,
however, believe that the government is doing altogether TOO much.
For example, I don't think it is the government's business to prohibit
gambling, but at the same time, I don't think it is the government's
business to operate a lottery either.  (Although, I suppose that a
lottery is a more friendly means of raising money than straigh out
taxation.  It is a voluntary tax).  Other things come to mind, too.
Like, the overgrown (and still growing) powers of the FDA.  Not to
mention the gov't subsidies of certain industries.

>Too little control or no control resaults in an anarchy in which ultimately,
>people are completely imprisoned by fear, triggered by the drive to survive. 
>Too much control, and sadism eventually sets in the government. 
>Totalitariasism might be seen as the beginnning of too much control. 

Well, your characterization of an anarchistic society as one where
people are completely imprisoned by fear is quite romantic, but 
still debatable.  Like I said above, I do believe that there are many
things that a government can do quite well, but most of them ought
to be done on much smaller scales, if at all.  The present situation
gives the federal gov't waaaaaaay too much power.  What do you think
the chance of G.Bush actually reading a letter you were to write to
him?  Or of him caring?  He's got how many hundreds of millions of
constituents.  Not that he necessarily WOULD, but it is much more
likely that, for example, your city's mayor, or even your state's
governor might very well get his hands on a letter you wrote him.
Even states are generally too big to be governed well.  The scale
is still too large for many things.  Maybe counties are more reasonable
sized things for government bodies.

Once upon a time, long long ago, there was a loose confederation of
states.  They all got together and became a United States.  Now, that;s
ancient history.  It is the United STATE.  Ugh.

>What our government does is to induce as much control as necessary to 
>allow a country where the people are both allowed the freedom-to-do 
>and freedom-from-fears, generally speaking, that is. 

Again, I think there is a lot more than we really need.  The sale of
liquor on sunday thing, for example, is not a a religion issue as
much as a control issue.  With the exception of the prohibition of
liquor sales to minors (who theoretically are defenseless and incapable
of making decisions for themselves, hence victims), the sale of
liquor is none of the government's business.  At least the Fed.
leaves that up to the states.  Now, we gotta get the attention of this
state and let them know that they are sticking their nose in business
which is none of theirs.

>>this sunday-liquor thing really seem trivial.
>Yeah it does, doesn't it? But i suppose if you're really into the 
>alcohol-thing, it doesn't matter.

I guess.  I never got into that alcohol thang.
Worse -- I read news...   ;)

>Prohibiting the sale of Liqour on Sunday is probably a pretty good idea,
>based on the following notions: a.) this may prevent workers calling in
>sick on Mondays when they really just had too much to drink. 

Not realistic.  People still drink on Sundays.  They just buy it on
Saturday, and/or drink it in those 'eating establishments' where drinks
are allowed to be sold individualy on Sundays.

>b.) Provides an easy way out of selling alcohol at footbal games where
>drunks are a real nuissance.

Also not necessary.  If the football stadium doesn't want to sell
alcohol, prohibiting it is not the way to keep from doing so.  Just
don't sell it.  Nobody is forcing anyone to sell liqour on sundays.

>However, i do not believe it has any real legal standing, or even makes
>idealogical sense. Even though it may be a good idea, i am typically 
>against legislation against good ideas.

Huh?  Do you mean against legislation of things which may be good ideas
but are not the business of the lawmakers?

--D
-- 
David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)      ***      What .signature?