The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
I do. “Should” implies “can”
I do. How can government protect property rights by first violating them?
The only purpose of government should be to annihilate itself wherever it exists.
I look forward to the day when the term government is a meme in which each individual carries with themselves as a reminder of self-governence while they operate in a possible (& most likley eventual) anarchist society or an alternative system not yet created.
I think that would be an interesting purpose for government; a reminder of previous attempts, in history, to make government an external body that which rules over people capable of internal rule.
Wow, anarchists post such enlightening comments. I am not asking if we should or should not have government. I am just asking if we do have government, is there any ethical justification for government above protecting our rights?
To suggest government should get involved in wealth redistribution violates protecting our rights. As such, a government cannot both protect our natural rights and engage in wealth redistribution. Not only that, but wealth redistribution is completely subjective. Whereas our rights are much more objective.
I disagree. The purpose of government is to produce security within which natural rights can be enjoyed. Protecting natural rights can only be the role of the holder of said rights.
Haha, sorry; I was just being honest :).
I am first and foremost a student, not an anarchist per se. I don’t think I know enough, for the moment, to claim myself a label other than libertarian.
I mostly said that as it was an idea I found to be a more interesting post than what I was originally going to post:
“I am first and foremost a student, so I am still fleshing out what I think government’s sole purpose is. But since I’m libertarian, I obviously think government’s purposes should be a lot less limited than what it is now.”
However, I can say I definitely against wealth distribution by the government, as well as regulation.
*Edit: I would say the purpose of government should be overseeing and ensuring we can protect our rights, but I don’t think it would work out if the government itself does it. Sort of like acting as a faculty for individuals to be able to protect their rights from one another.
“Produce security” is highly subjective.
Oh, I was not referring to you, just the first two posters.
“Overseeing and ensuring we can protect our rights” is extremely vague and subjective though. How would lawmakers interpret that?
The only purpose of government should be to not exist.
So is government. That is why it must be produced by the market.
“Produce security” could be used to justify regulations and wealth redistribution. “Protecting our natural rights” could not be used to justify regulations or wealth redistribution.
Protecting from fraud and force (and threat thereof), and no more. Too bad it can’t even satisfy that much.
So what? The government doesn’t need to justify anything it does in order to do it. It commands, you obey.
Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.
Well, we’d still need to make sure that “rights” is a strictly defined term. Most politicians view rights as positives and not negatives. I think it was Roosevelt who proposed a second bill of rights, which included minimum wages, health care, education, recreation, and freedom from monopolies. I highlight the last one because apparently the irony of an expanding government advocating freedom from monopolies seemed lost on him.
But yes I’ll side with the others who have said the government cannot protect our natural rights since its very existence and subsistence through taxation must necessarily violate them.
In the United States, the government is limited. As much as the president may like to shut down all the newspapers, he cannot.
How did you go from the government to the president? The government is the president, the congress and the courts. If the whole government set out to shut down the newspapers, there would be nothing to stop them.
Roosevelt was obviously an idiot. The “rights” he proposed were not natural rights, and he obviously did not understand natural rights.
Alright, so the question then is how can society exist, in harmony, without a government to mediate? How do you protect the minority from the majority or vise versa the majority from the minority?
Military strategy estimates that it generally takes a 3:1 advantage for the attacker in order for an attack to be successful. All that a minority needs to be protected is the willingness to mount a solid defense, and no one will see it as beneficial to attack them. Of course, if a majority is not powerful enough to attack a minority, then a minority attack on a majority is even less likely to succeed.