The proper role of the state and limiting state power
Posted by scottburch 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
If we say that the proper role of the state is protection of the individual and property, then it becomes necessary for the state to have the ability to use force against those who use force against individuals.
I always get asked the question, "given that people will take advantage of power, how do we then keep the state from becoming corrupt and taking property and liberty from the individual?" Mostly I am asked this by statists who want a large powerful state believing that the state is all good if it was not for those evil "corporations". I believe that this is the reason why it is not possible to have a "perfect" state. The solution of the founders of the US was to say that the people collectively should have the means to use force to eliminate such a government.
However, as we are probably all well aware. Most of the people have been tricked into believing that the people using force to remove the government is crazy and want to take away the people's ability to use force to ensure their liberty.
I guess the question is, who decides when a government has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be removed, with force if necessary, in an individual centered society.
I am sure this is a common thought, but I would like to hear opinions, because I have no answer to this question. The answer to go Galt and allow the rest of society to do what it wants does not work when others believe they have the right to use force against you to make you conform to their will. This turns all free thinking individuals into slaves to the collective.
UPDATE
Thank you to everyone for your responses. This has been helpful.
The responses did solidify something for me. Keeping control local is key to a free society. There is a law in the US that says the military can not be used against the people, however, they just called the federal guns "federal police" and sent them against the people. "A rose by any other name..." If we started over, we would make it clear that local communities police themselves.
I live in Canada and I believe there is a version of this. Small communities who don't have the means to train their own police can pull from a pool of federally trained police (RCMP). The community pays and houses them, and can be replaced at any time by someone else in the pool because they are answerable to the community. I rarely ever see the local police, even in very small towns, but when I have talked to them, they are courteous and know what is going on in the community.
I am new to the community here, and have already gained value, so, of course, I have signed up as a producer.
I always get asked the question, "given that people will take advantage of power, how do we then keep the state from becoming corrupt and taking property and liberty from the individual?" Mostly I am asked this by statists who want a large powerful state believing that the state is all good if it was not for those evil "corporations". I believe that this is the reason why it is not possible to have a "perfect" state. The solution of the founders of the US was to say that the people collectively should have the means to use force to eliminate such a government.
However, as we are probably all well aware. Most of the people have been tricked into believing that the people using force to remove the government is crazy and want to take away the people's ability to use force to ensure their liberty.
I guess the question is, who decides when a government has overstepped it's bounds and needs to be removed, with force if necessary, in an individual centered society.
I am sure this is a common thought, but I would like to hear opinions, because I have no answer to this question. The answer to go Galt and allow the rest of society to do what it wants does not work when others believe they have the right to use force against you to make you conform to their will. This turns all free thinking individuals into slaves to the collective.
UPDATE
Thank you to everyone for your responses. This has been helpful.
The responses did solidify something for me. Keeping control local is key to a free society. There is a law in the US that says the military can not be used against the people, however, they just called the federal guns "federal police" and sent them against the people. "A rose by any other name..." If we started over, we would make it clear that local communities police themselves.
I live in Canada and I believe there is a version of this. Small communities who don't have the means to train their own police can pull from a pool of federally trained police (RCMP). The community pays and houses them, and can be replaced at any time by someone else in the pool because they are answerable to the community. I rarely ever see the local police, even in very small towns, but when I have talked to them, they are courteous and know what is going on in the community.
I am new to the community here, and have already gained value, so, of course, I have signed up as a producer.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Doesn't the use of the product of someones labour without their permission fall under theft?
Remember the quote: "... a republic, if you can keep it ..."?
I think that the Founders made an assumption about the level of knowledge and rationality of the electorate.
Currently the entire educational establishment is doing its best, deliberately, to hinder the acquisition of those qualities by the young.
The results are obvious, I think.
If you have the time and the inclination, read Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr.'s "The Decline of American Liberalism". A sad and very enlightening history, in my opinion.
Best wishes.
Maritimus
EDIT: Inserted a missing word.
The suggestions to simply "have a constitution," "have separation of powers," or "vote better" have all been tried and didn't work. Basing our political system on the initiation of force against innocent people (i.e., taxation) is immoral as well as being the practical reason that the system as it is can never function to protect the individual's rights and property.
Hillary of course has proven she cannot lead, nor manage, nor supervise. The real lesson learned from massive failure of both herself and her trainer and responsible supervisor. That's what happens when citizens fail in their responsibility and concentrate only on their rights - to steal, loot, and plunder.
A change that would help is get the Cabinet Secretaries out of the Act of Succession. They have zero votes which in itself is a denial of due process and the role of the citizen in selection. they should be concentrating on their job and training their successors as managers and supervisors - for leadership we presumably have the military itself . It's sort of a peacetime, war time chain of command.
The Chief of Staff in war time should be equal to the SecDef and Called something more appropriate Commander, US Armed Forces would suffice. The top two civilians would still be in charge with two backups selected by the two Congressional Houses.
As for the succession which so far has given us the horror of Pelosi it 's up to the Congress and the President's signature.
I submit that the order should be members of the senate, the Governors, members of the House and if 635 aren't enough we're in real trouble. Better to keep the top two separated.
Why? Votes? Senators are elected by entire States. The approval of the Representatives could be added and vice versa. Which means either a stated individual or the Senator Pro Tem and the Speaker would be the only one with any urgency. Surprise we've gone about 15% of our history without a VP. There is no time requirement for selection or approval.
Governors second and Representatives last due to sparcity of votes. Reps represent about half a million citizens they are elected by a significantly smaller number. Not even Nevada nor Rhode Island can produce less votes for Governor than they can for a Representative.
Last. Same party. That stops a Pelosi style coup. In the main it's a case of due process. The nation votes for hillary and she croaks which looks likely absent a diet and personal trainer, the VP at the same time then the third in line would be one selected by the House or 435 people or the Senate if changed at present. No requirement to keep Pelosi out if Trump were in office and croaked but ....let's not get too much into horror fiction.
The statist argument assumes helplessness of law-abiding citizens. Trouble is: those same statists want the LAC's helpless. The statist argument also assumes that those initiating force will prevail without the State to restrain them. They forget: in most cases those who want to be civilized, have the numerical advantage. That's how Western towns survived, and even thrived, before organized government followed the first settlers to the frontiers. A local sheriff could, more often than not, count on a majority of gun holders in his town supporting him.
Note: High Noon is a fiction. It also illustrates everything that can go wrong when a pacifistic philosophy, religious or otherwise, takes hold in a town. Soon the criminal element effectively rules, because everyone else is disarmed--or has turned coward.
We think we know the answer. At least we know the approach to the answer, with some of the rough edges polished off. But until humanity matures to the point where it is able to except a rational philosophy, don't expect too much. Rather, be aware that you will need to steer things toward the goal of human rationality. That, fellow Gulchers, may take a while. A very long while. Don't give up, but don't become concretized by saying it has to be perfect now or we'll cease to participate by running away. In Atlas Rand used a device to make a point. Unless you want to keep apart from the rest of humanity, this plan is limited, and in the long run, at least with foreseeable technology, cannot be defended.
Second is expand control don't lose control. Recall is available at the local and state level and if you are in a state that doesn't have it it's a slave state - get it.
Federal level we should have it but despite the Constitution clearly stating other than age and residency requirements AND leaving the conduct of the selection to the States that somehow these servants of the states are exempt once the Senate or Representative Houses accept them.
The fix for that has never been attempted and it is pay the base salary and let the feds pay the added costs of travel and living expenses. But base salary as primary employment requires taxes and is proof of who employs whom.
That string having been run out You don't punish just one of them with recall it punishes all of them so a bad political party at the federal level can be punished at the state level with recall or not voting them into office. True we don't have None Of The Above but whose fault is that? The citizens. No reason why it can't be implemented along with a straight Yes or No if only one candidate is running. Same as with any proposition or question or proposal.
Any or all of that would have fixed thei problem long ago but the worst part is the eligible voter pool provides only half the registered voters a lot of them don't actually vote. Clearly then half the country has become disintereasted and usually because they have no representation and if they do vote their vote is tampered with by changing the name or results under winner take all rules.
I'm registered this year but only voted in the primary to cover local issues to avoid having my vote stolen and re-assigned to someone else.
You've seen the results of this year and you've also seen how the Government party and it's two halves has moved to block any further efforts at them controlling and rigging the elections Short of Trumps speech the problem is ignored so WHY are you enabling them year after year?
The problem with that it is negates the reasons for any other steps. as long over half the nation is participating in the enabling. In fact it blocks the need for anything further because it clearly shows at least half or more of the nation is not unhappy.
That one little fact is probably why the military hasn't upheld their oath of office which would be the next step but it shows how perilously weak the government really is. They can't remove the military's requirement for that oath except by amendment or ignoring it and that would give the military the reason it needs to act. 'support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.' A second way is to subvert and suborn the military into also ignoring their oaths of office which considering the way they have been treated by Obomba ain't going to happen. The third way is reduce the size of the military which he has done by half and that the most important half and suborn the remaining half which hasn't worked except for the careerists he appointed.
The next way is also an ongoing Obumbler project is to increase the size of the protective echelon or as you know it the DHS to the size and power of the military. Protective Echelon is from a German term schutzstaffel whose main and real purpose is to protect the government. I'd say most of what they do is in that area of concern. I don't think they take the same oath. Howeveer many are former military.
But the intent of the nation as a whole is 50.5% over half are happy. If tht figure went to 55% or 60% be a different story.
Why should they. Consider the largest tax increase from 2008. Devaluation of the buying power of the dollar, regardless of the price of gas, is still a fact. That's done through inflation and that's done by going heavily in debt and then repudiating or refusing the debt. Welshing is another word. So 30% cut in buying power or one third it's value did NOT show up in COLA but instead two groups got hit and hit hard. Retirees who are done working or cannot work and the unfunded military retirement. Another reason the military does not much care for Obungler they see him as Oburglar.
And there's anothere one coming as the bill to pay his debt is about due. So more inflation, devaluation and refusing the debt by decreasing the value of retirement or college savings or home savings is going to show up again. It was no Recession it was a scam.
Long winded but that 's where we sit. As for armed insurrection? On what grounds? Over half the nation is happy look at the amount voting to keep us in power!
And there it ends.
The solution is
QUIT Enabling
TAKE control
MAKE changes
In that order
In this couch potato nation. Fat chance.
And now you know why we have a Hillary and a Donald as candidates. Remember the saying always take advantage of a good crisis and if one doesn't come along manufacture one?
I give you the present elections Hillary and Trump ARE the crisis.
And they have trapped you once again by controlling who can get on the ballots even before they rig the results.
i really don't think anyone in DC gives a fig which one is elected their power is real and secured by the greatest wall ever built. Couch Potato Citizens who 'don't get it.'
To the point they don't even pretend to honor the Constitution part of Constitutional Republic - except for some fig leafs that like Contract with America will be watered down and disappear until next election.
Having the "right" but not the tools (guns) is ludicrous.
A firm foundation of morals, principles and ethics that have been time tested and proven is the best defense. Check this out: http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
Load more comments...