Your Government Owes You a Job

[dblack]

If government is the only 21st century institution capable of providing every American who wants a job with employment, does that qualify as egalitarian?

Not unless you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to provide us with jobs. We need to get clear on that - the purpose of government. It's really the main argument these days, but hardly anyone bothers trying to pin it down.

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

 

[georgephillip]

Not unless you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to provide us with jobs. We need to get clear on that - the purpose of government. It's really the main argument these days, but hardly anyone bothers trying to pin it down.

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Speaking of police, some officers patrol on streets where the only options are bully or victim. Maybe government faces a similar challenge with today's corporations?

 

[alan1]

Venture capital financing for people who can't find a job?

Sounds like the Italian government.

Sometimes there are not enough jobs to go around.
Maybe capitalism has outlived its usefulness?

Hold on a second. If the government owes me a job, and there are not enough jobs to go around, then they have to be borrowing a job from somebody so they can give it to me.

Who is loaning the government jobs?

.

The Job Fairy. He is second cousin once removed from The Tooth Fairy.

 

[alan1]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I can get behind it.

Everyone who is unemployed can be shipped to our southern border, handed a radio and a pair of binoculars and watch the border. Each person can be stationed 1/4 mile apart, starting at the Gulf and ending at the Pacific.

Failure to report illegals crossing the border can be punished by having to pay back every cent earned on the job AND 5 years in jail.

I think I'm all for providing jobs to people who demand government give them a job.

Typically, the military would give them a job.
If they don't want to shoot a gun, the military needs cooks, mechanics, computer programmers, engineers, truck drivers, etc, etc.

 

[dblack]

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Speaking of police, some officers patrol on streets where the only options are bully or victim. Maybe government faces a similar challenge with today's corporations?

Responding to violence in kind is not bullying. It's not bullying, for example, for police to raid a gang who's been terrorizing a neighborhood.

And the relationship between corporations and government is radically different than the relationship between criminals and government. Criminals engage in their malice despite government; corporations, with its endorsement.

 

[regent]

Not unless you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to provide us with jobs. We need to get clear on that - the purpose of government. It's really the main argument these days, but hardly anyone bothers trying to pin it down.

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Does happiness of the people have anything to do with the purpose of government? Does having medical care make people happier?

 

[georgephillip]

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Speaking of police, some officers patrol on streets where the only options are bully or victim. Maybe government faces a similar challenge with today's corporations?

Responding to violence in kind is not bullying. It's not bullying, for example, for police to raid a gang who's been terrorizing a neighborhood.

And the relationship between corporations and government is radically different than the relationship between criminals and government. Criminals engage in their malice despite government; corporations, with its endorsement.

Police often proactively treat all young men they come in contact with like gang members while corporate gangsters are endorsed and subsidized in the halls of government.

 

[dblack]

Speaking of police, some officers patrol on streets where the only options are bully or victim. Maybe government faces a similar challenge with today's corporations?

Responding to violence in kind is not bullying. It's not bullying, for example, for police to raid a gang who's been terrorizing a neighborhood.

And the relationship between corporations and government is radically different than the relationship between criminals and government. Criminals engage in their malice despite government; corporations, with its endorsement.

Police often proactively treat all young men they come in contact with like gang members while corporate gangsters are endorsed and subsidized in the halls of government.

Do you find either of these practices acceptable?

 

[dblack]

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Does happiness of the people have anything to do with the purpose of government?

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

 

[georgephillip]

The Purpose of Government would be a logical starting point.
I suppose there could be more than one...

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Does happiness of the people have anything to do with the purpose of government? Does having medical care make people happier?

Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.

 

[dblack]

Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.

It's the bolded portion that I think is the most significant aspect of the modern liberal conception of government, and the most misguided. In my view, the goal of government should be to secure the rights of all the people, not just the majority. That's a key distinction, and I think it's why our founders steered clear of pure democracy. They deliberately sought government that was limited in it's ability to satiate the majority, especially when doing so would violate the rights of the minority.

 

[alan1]

Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.

It's the bolded portion that I think is the most significant aspect of the modern liberal conception of government, and the most misguided. In my view, the goal of government should be to secure the rights of all the people, not just the majority. That's a key distinction, and I think it's why our founders steered clear of pure democracy. They deliberately sought government that was limited in it's ability to satiate the majority, especially when doing so would violate the rights of the minority.

Indeed.
A purely democratic society would probably restrict the minority in many ways.
Just imagine if the majority of heterosexuals decided that the minority of homosexuals should pay more tax % simply because they were homosexual.
Just imagine if the majority of whites decided that the minority of blacks should pay more tax % simply because they were black.
Just imagine if the majority of women decided that the minority of men should pay more tax % simply because they were male.
Just imagine if the majority of non-diabetic people decided that diabetics should pay more tax % simply because they are diabetic.
Just imagine if the majority of low income earners decided that high income earners should pay more tax % simply because they earn high incomes.

 

[regent]

There could be as many as we assign - spelling that out was the purpose of the Constitution. In my view, because government employs coercion as its means, the purpose and function of government should be limited to only that which justifies such extreme measures (thus, my sig line). Namely, that involves protecting us from bullies. Sadly, many people prefer a government that acts as the bully, proactively coercing others on their behalf.

Does happiness of the people have anything to do with the purpose of government?

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

 

[dblack]

Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.

It's the bolded portion that I think is the most significant aspect of the modern liberal conception of government, and the most misguided. In my view, the goal of government should be to secure the rights of all the people, not just the majority. That's a key distinction, and I think it's why our founders steered clear of pure democracy. They deliberately sought government that was limited in it's ability to satiate the majority, especially when doing so would violate the rights of the minority.

Indeed.
A purely democratic society would probably restrict the minority in many ways.
Just imagine if the majority of heterosexuals decided that the minority of homosexuals should pay more tax % simply because they were homosexual.
Just imagine if the majority of whites decided that the minority of blacks should pay more tax % simply because they were black.
Just imagine if the majority of women decided that the minority of men should pay more tax % simply because they were male.
Just imagine if the majority of non-diabetic people decided that diabetics should pay more tax % simply because they are diabetic.
Just imagine if the majority of low income earners decided that high income earners should pay more tax % simply because they earn high incomes.

Or the majority of people who think insurance is the best way to finance health care decided that those who don't agree should pay higher taxes?

 

[dblack]

Does happiness of the people have anything to do with the purpose of government?

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

We created government to secure your right to pursue happiness, among other things.

I'll ask again, do you think government should strive to make people happy? Do you recognize the difference between protecting someone's freedom to act and proactively empowering them to act?

 

[Stephanie]

Does happiness of the people have anything to do with the purpose of government?

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

oh wow, you see all them happy people in Venezuela ? China? North Korea?

you people scare me you think this is what government IS FOR

 

[regent]

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

oh wow, you see all them happy people in Venezuela ? China? North Korea?

you people scare me you think this is what government IS FOR

Might try reading the Declaration of Independence.

 

[alan1]

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

We created government to secure your right to pursue happiness, among other things.

I'll ask again, do you think government should strive to make people happy?

I know you weren't asking me, but the right of the people to "pursue happiness" is entirely different than the "government striving to make people happy".

Do you recognize the difference between protecting someone's freedom to act and proactively empowering them to act?

I'm guessing regent doesn't see the difference, but I do, and I'm pretty sure you do.

 

[georgephillip]

How would it? Are you suggesting government has a responsibility to make people happy?

Is the purpose of government to create an environment that people can pursue happiness?

oh wow, you see all them happy people in Venezuela ? China? North Korea?

you people scare me you think this is what government IS FOR

Why don't you take a quick head count of all the happy people in Detroit, Camden, and the South Bronx? You people deserve to be scared.

 

[georgephillip]

Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.

It's the bolded portion that I think is the most significant aspect of the modern liberal conception of government, and the most misguided. In my view, the goal of government should be to secure the rights of all the people, not just the majority. That's a key distinction, and I think it's why our founders steered clear of pure democracy. They deliberately sought government that was limited in it's ability to satiate the majority, especially when doing so would violate the rights of the minority.

Securing the rights of all people differs from serving the best interests of a majority of a people. All people have a right to equal opportunity and justice in the marketplace, but a small minority has no right to become richer and richer from an economy where the rate of return on capital far outpaces the rate of economic growth.