What do you think the government should be responsible for?

For me:
The Military
Managing Infrastructure (high level. contracts should be private)
Management of Social Security.
That means just making sure that the money is put where it is supposed to.
Foreign Policy
The Mail


I think thats just about it for me. I'm sure i forgot some stuff, but whatever.

In broad terms - freedom, order, and equality.

Freedom, defence and education. That's it.

As is promised, the government should establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

It would be nice if they would put spammers in camps too...:D

it shouldnt be there. we should have true direct democracy and govern ourselves, and decide everything within communities self government is the key to true freedom.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
it shouldnt be there. we should have true direct democracy and govern ourselves, and decide everything within communities self government is the key to true freedom.
The advanced system of government you just described already exists in various 3rd world countries. Their president is referred to as a chief, their doctors are called medicine men, and their economy is based on trading things like animal skins and children. Sounds like a real step in the right direction...

Originally posted by Evil Homer
What do you think the government should be responsible for?

As little as possible: defense, infrastructure, and uh, well that's about it.

Here's what government shouldn't be responsible for: protecting people from themselves, imposing morals upon each other, and fixing "society's wrongs."

The government definitely has its hands into too many cookie jars.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
we should have true direct democracy and govern ourselves,

There's a concept that if there were 4 men and 3 women on an island run democratically, rape would be legal.

Right now the majority of the country is for the death penalty. True democracy would exclude three branches of government. Right after 9/11, imagine what the majority of the country would have voted for.

There's a reason our system has been designed to move slowly and stably.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
As little as possible: defense, infrastructure, and uh, well that's about it.

Here's what government shouldn't be responsible for: protecting people from themselves, imposing morals upon each other, and fixing "society's wrongs."

Yeah and I would add...they should not be responsible for fixing other culture's wrongs either.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Yeah and I would add...they should not be responsible for fixing other culture's wrongs either.

i would agree...but if the "other culture's wrongs" are harmul to humans or to the planet we live on....id say we have a reason to intervene

Originally posted by WhammyBar
it shouldnt be there. we should have true direct democracy and govern ourselves, and decide everything within communities self government is the key to true freedom.
True democracy is indistinguishable from dictatorship.

i would agree...but if the "other culture's wrongs" are harmul to humans or to the planet we live on....id say we have a reason to intervene

We saw what happened in Europe when Hitler was ignored. It's happened many times in history. You can't simply turn your back on the rest of the world.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
The advanced system of government you just described already exists in various 3rd world countries. Their president is referred to as a chief, their doctors are called medicine men, and their economy is based on trading things like animal skins and children. Sounds like a real step in the right direction...


I'm not a primitivist, I'm just saying that centralized government creates opressive hierarchy.

Originally posted by Karankawa
We saw what happened in Europe when Hitler was ignored. It's happened many times in history. You can't simply turn your back on the rest of the world.

You're right we can't just turn ours backs on the rest of the world. Britian did not with Hitler because it was a tad too close for comfort. The States did with Hitler, they were light years away and did not come in till almost the end of the war. I think self preservation kind of ruled there. He was going to conquor the world...that's motivating.

Does it give license to just go into any existing country and say: hey fools democracy is better and then impose it, oh and by the way we'll just help ourselves to anything here we like. Seems to me there are a whole lot of countries where the world has turned it's back... nothing to gain by invading or ummm helping. It's a very gray area. There are many regimes out there, it's never an issue until we feel threatened so I really can't buy the "help" angle.

Originally posted by Decka
i would agree...but if the "other culture's wrongs" are harmul to humans or to the planet we live on....id say we have a reason to intervene

No I don't agree. We can Help other cultures but it is not our job to fix everyone else's problems. It's not possible. Aid is great, imposing our system on their country is wrong. We can't even feed the world at this point. Are you going to fix India, are you going to fix China... I don't think so.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Freedom, defence and education. That's it.

Amazes me how a self-proclaimed communist/anarchist can say this.

Originally posted by Jester
In broad terms - freedom, order, and equality.

Use broad terms, and you grant broad power. I take this as meaning you want an expansive government.

Amazes me how a self-proclaimed communist/anarchist can say this.
Amazes me how ignorance contests everything.

to the parent post i would say that the goverment should definately provide for defense and to protect religion. also for education. otherwise it should just butt the h*ll out.

Amazes me how ignorance contests everything.

Why do you say that? I was rolling my eyes and thinking the same thing about you when I read your post. Again, I wonder if you have any clue what the hell you're saying. But this isn't the first time. Maybe you could try to explain yourself. But I doubt it. It's a lot easier to call people stupid, isn't it?

Why do you say that? I was rolling my eyes and thinking the same thing about you when I read your post. Again, I wonder if you have any clue what the hell you're saying. But this isn't the first time. Maybe you could try to explain yourself. But I doubt it. It's a lot easier to call people stupid, isn't it?
A) I wasn't contesting anything.
B) It's gotta suck when one day you wake up and realize you're reaching middle age and the only relief you can think of is belittling people on topics your molecular sized brain doesn't understand, something that's been proven before, and has once again resurfaced. Do they put something strange in the water there in Texas or something? You're all so damn screwy. Since every time I try to explain it you're unable to grasp the concept, I'll just give up and throw out definitions... again.
Communism: "Theory of political and economic development proposed by Karl Marx and developed and implemented by V. I. Lenin. In Marxist theory, "communism" denotes the final stage of human historical development in which the people rule both politically (compare: democracy) and economically (contrast: capitalism). Since the government, according to Marxist theory, is essentially an instrument of class oppression, and the society which emerges in this final stage is classless, as this final state is approaches government will gradually wither away (compare: anarchism). See: proletarian, bourgeois." - members.aol.com/lshauser2/lexicon.html (first on google's define function)
Anarchism: " A political philosophy that dispenses with the state and finds social order in the self-organization of individuals and groups. The word derives from the Greek (‘an’= no, ‘arche’ = authority). Popularly confused with ‘chaos’which is the lack of any order whatsoever." - www.bothell.washington.edu/faculty/bkochis/bls362/glossary.htm (3rd in google define function, first two were too simple)
Now, specifically:
Anarcho-syndicalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
No simple definitions from google's, thus: movement through anarchism through the formations of workers groups. Semi-famous anarcho-syndicalist would be Noam Chomsky.

Now where does the amazement come from? Oh, that's right, ignorance. Try and fix that before saying stupid things.

Originally posted by Blibblob
A) I wasn't contesting anything.
B) It's gotta suck when one day you wake up and realize you're reaching middle age and the only relief you can think of is belittling people on topics your molecular sized brain doesn't understand, something that's been proven before, and has once again resurfaced. Do they put something strange in the water there in Texas or something? You're all so damn screwy. Since every time I try to explain it you're unable to grasp the concept, I'll just give up and throw out definitions... again.
Communism: "Theory of political and economic development proposed by Karl Marx and developed and implemented by V. I. Lenin. In Marxist theory, "communism" denotes the final stage of human historical development in which the people rule both politically (compare: democracy) and economically (contrast: capitalism). Since the government, according to Marxist theory, is essentially an instrument of class oppression, and the society which emerges in this final stage is classless, as this final state is approaches government will gradually wither away (compare: anarchism). See: proletarian, bourgeois." - members.aol.com/lshauser2/lexicon.html (first on google's define function)
Anarchism: " A political philosophy that dispenses with the state and finds social order in the self-organization of individuals and groups. The word derives from the Greek (‘an’= no, ‘arche’ = authority). Popularly confused with ‘chaos’which is the lack of any order whatsoever." - www.bothell.washington.edu/faculty/bkochis/bls362/glossary.htm (3rd in google define function, first two were too simple)
Now, specifically:
Anarcho-syndicalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
No simple definitions from google's, thus: movement through anarchism through the formations of workers groups. Semi-famous anarcho-syndicalist would be Noam Chomsky.

Now where does the amazement come from? Oh, that's right, ignorance. Try and fix that before saying stupid things. [/B]

Every time I come back to this forum it seems like you're doing the same thing. You wander off subject to get a few jabs in and make your replies far longer than necessary. It's not like I can't read, it's like I don't want to read your rambling...oh yeah, how's the govenor down there?...Now this forum has gotten so out of hand I don't even know what this thread is about.

Originally posted by Decka
......if the "other culture's wrongs" are harmul to humans or to the planet we live on....id say we have a reason to intervene

You poor fucking imbecile.

Never --evidently-- has it EVER dawned upon you or any of the other incredibly ignorant --"Aww, I wanna vote fer Gee Dubbya cause he's such a 'moooooral person' --sheep that THIS modern American technological society's **wrongs** are causing more harm to the goddamned planet than any other society that has ever existed.

Every time I come back to this forum it seems like you're doing the same thing. You wander off subject to get a few jabs in and make your replies far longer than necessary. It's not like I can't read, it's like I don't want to read your rambling...oh yeah, how's the govenor down there?...Now this forum has gotten so out of hand I don't even know what this thread is about.
I don't believe I was talking to you. I was shoved off topic, it's obvious that you don't know what's going on.

Something I just noticed, Leper first said something and I commented back, and Karankawa replied to my reply. Now either Leper and Karankawa are the same person, the universe is collapsing and people are being strangely merged, or somebody is a dumbass. Regardless, I have become quite confused as to who is who, what is what, and have now lost count as to how many dumbasses there are.

Originally posted by Blibblob

Now either Leper and Karankawa are the same person, the universe is collapsing and people are being strangely merged, or somebody is a dumbass.

I feel pretty certian that the latter choice is the only possibility here (unless that theory about the universe periodically refroming by collapsing into itself is actually true). Although you occasionally make some interesting posts, your notions of communism and government are often conflicting and make little sense, and apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed.

I feel pretty certian that the latter choice is the only possibility here (unless that theory about the universe periodically refroming by collapsing into itself is actually true). Although you occasionally make some interesting posts, your notions of communism and government are often conflicting and make little sense, and apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed.
Great job ignoring the facts. Another little theory for you to look up would be federalism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's theoretical system. Generally considered the first anarchism system. Self-governance in nearly all issues. Cooperation is the leading power in an anarchist state. Not to mention this had nothing to do with "governments" in systems that currently can't be achieved. I took this as the now.

Umm...

I believe the question was "what should the government be responsible for?"

The question implies that anyone who is to respond must post something about a government existing. Therefore an anarch-syndyclist, assuming they would want to respond to this thread, would have to assume a government exists. There could be no discussion otherwise.

Now would those idiots looking to derail discussion please learn how to actually discuss something rather than nitpick each other to death...(although sometimes it can be quite fun, it is not discussion)

eh, you'll eventually get used to this 500. It happens on just about every thread. I guess that there could be the argument that the government should not be responsible for anything. That being of a very extreme anarchist.

Anarchism doesn't necessarily discount there ever being a government, but i believe the argument is that all current governments are inadequate and should be disbanded.

Originally posted by Freethinker
You poor fucking imbecile.

first off...im not poor, i have money. Second, i fuck some girls, so yea im a fucker... the third one is a bit off but hey...whatever makes FT happy right?
Originally posted by Freethinker

Never --evidently-- has it EVER dawned upon you or any of the other incredibly ignorant --"Aww, I wanna vote fer Gee Dubbya cause he's such a 'moooooral person' --sheep that THIS modern American technological society's **wrongs** are causing more harm to the goddamned planet than any other society that has ever existed.

So you are going to blame George W. for the invention of the car? blame W. for building all the factories? Blame W. for the Industrial Revolution? sure why not! Lets blame W. for EVERYTHING!

and prove your claim....it was very vague.....how is america's "technological society's wrongs" killing the planet.....faster than a nuclear bomb.....tell me im all ears....

Originally posted by Decka
first off...im not poor, i have money. Second, i fuck some girls, so yea im a fucker... the third one is a bit off but hey...whatever makes FT happy right?
Decka - I don't think he was referring to you as poor because you have no money. It's an expression of sorrow or sympathy, i.e. you poor, lost soul...poor baby, etc., etc. He was very abruptly eliciting pity.

Originally posted by Decka
So you are going to blame George W. for the invention of the car? blame W. for building all the factories? Blame W. for the Industrial Revolution? sure why not! Lets blame W. for EVERYTHING!

How in the hell did you come to that conclusion from the following post.

[quote]Originally posted by FreethinkerNever --evidently-- has it EVER dawned upon you or any of the other incredibly ignorant --"Aww, I wanna vote fer Gee Dubbya cause he's such a 'moooooral person' --sheep that THIS modern American technological society's **wrongs** are causing more harm to the goddamned planet than any other society that has ever existed.

Maybe you should take some comprehensive reading classes. *ush was not blammed for anything in that post.

Originally posted by Echo2
How in the hell did you come to that conclusion from the following post.

[quote]Originally posted by FreethinkerNever --evidently-- has it EVER dawned upon you or any of the other incredibly ignorant --"Aww, I wanna vote fer Gee Dubbya cause he's such a 'moooooral person' --sheep that THIS modern American technological society's **wrongs** are causing more harm to the goddamned planet than any other society that has ever existed.

Maybe you should take some comprehensive reading classes. *ush was not blammed for anything in that post.

Because liberals always blame Bush for everything bad that happens in this country. And it's just cause they're mad too. Don't give me that "because it's true" crap.