In my libertarian opinion, this is good if it means no one needs to pay taxes. In my conservative opinion, this is bad news it is means a somehow legal expansion of the government.
Some time ago there was a judge who granted a woman’s request to sterilize her daughter on the basis of promiscuity, which was ultimately carried out under the guise of an appendectomy. When she tried to get somebody held accountable for this travesty, the court ruled that the hospital couldn’t be held liable because they were operating under court order, the mother was faultless since she’d gotten a court order and, while the trial court ruled the judge had overstepped his bounds and need to pay, the appeals court ruled that judges aren’t liable for judicial actions, no matter how heinous. Just further proof that relying on the courts to police government action is foolhardy.
the constitution was voided pretty much before the ink was dry. the federal government instituted some kind of mandatory health insurance for sailors within a few years of 1783. it is said that the soviet union’s constitution as worded did a better job of guaranteeing civil liberties than ours did. governments will never be restrained by pieces of paper, its illusory.
Governments will not be restrained by pieces of paper. But governments will be restrained by the people, especially if they have guns. The ink tells the government what line it can’t cross, and the people what to put up with. It’s up to the people to enforce that. It might not work forever, but it slows down the encroachment of government. That America had one kind of government since the late 18th century, while France had 15, shows that the US constitution has been a remarkable success.
Government will always exist. Even with the best of intentions, the do-gooders will create it and attempt to limit it with a Constitution. But restraint cannot last beyond the lifespan of the Constitution’s authors. The more diverse a populace becomes in its values, the smaller to no government must prevail. While the intention to create and restrain government (to defend against the unconstrained government of evil men) is honorable, no government (read: market solutions) in one’s defense is offered as a viable alternative by Hans Herman-Hoppe and others of the Austrian School.
I can’t help but notice that the source for this story was the defendant himself. So this appears to be a highly biased story. When I have time, I’ll look up the actual Supreme Court case.
Nice to see a clairvoyant among us.
I am no clairvoyant but I’ve never read of a time in the past when government did not exist. Of course, there are theories that the first society was a governmentless society just as there are theories of a future without government. I agree with Hazlitt that we must not rely on a priorism only, but experience and a priorism.
To say that there will always be government implies clairvoyancy. Otherwise you would’ve said “I think there will always be government.” Either way, of course society precedes government – how else could government have come about?
governments will never be restrained by pieces of paper, its illusory.
Win.
Is this any better:
Government will always exist because it has always existed. It has always existed because society has always had enough powerful, intellectually and economically, idiots to create it and society always will.
Really? Government has always existed? Otherwise, you’re still implying clairvoyancy. So no, it’s not any better. Why would it be? Or was that a rhetorical question?
I try again:
Government will always exist as a solution to the discomfort of powerful idiots in society because it has always existed as a solution to the discomfort of powerful idiots in society.
You don’t know whether government has always existed as such a solution, and you certainly don’t know whether government will always exist as such a solution. Furthermore, even if government has always existed as such a solution, that has no bearing on whether it will continue to exist as such. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance.
So government is not the best method of plunder ever devised by mankind. It can yet be perfected and, therefore, I cannot say that it has always been the preferred method of plunder or that it always will be. I see where you are going and, consequently, have to agree that since this is the case, I have been arguing from ignorance.
I take it you’re being sarcastic? If so, then unfortunately I can’t parse your actual point. Can you please be more straightforward?
I can’t conceive of a better way to plunder than by government, but hell, I am no clairvoyant (just ignorant).
Perhaps you’d like to actually demonstrate how you haven’t been making an argument from ignorance, rather than snidely and mockingly imply that you haven’t?
Who’s to say that plunder will always be preferred by the most powerful, let alone anyone else?
I stated a conclusion without premise: Government will always exist. Then, I added a premise: 1. Government is (has been and will be) the solution to the discomfort of some of the powerful. The conclusion is false because the premise is false. The premise is false because, as you stated, it is an argument from ignorance. It is not known that government has always been the solution to the discomfort of some of the powerful or that it always will be. Why? It may be that some of the powerful have used more primitive methods of force than government to solve their discomfort. It may be that some of the powerful will invent more advanced methods of force than government to solve their discomfort. Or that all the powerful have not (at some time) and may not (in the future) resort to force! I simply do not know. Since the premise is an argument from ignorance, it follows that the conclusion is ignorant.